School Facilities - A Long Sad Story

The first great wave of new students engulfed New Jersey school districts in the 1950s and 1960s. Births had declined sharply during the depression years of the 1930s and remained low while males served in the armed forces during World War II in the 1940s. The enormous increase in births that followed quickly resulted in overcrowded schools and large class size in existing school systems and in new districts in the rapidly expanding suburbs.

Some of the older established districts, particularly in larger cities, had space for expanded ernollment. Many newer districts had to build schools as fast as they could. The high and accompanying increase in property taxes led many of these districts to cut corners, a solution that reduced the immediate cost but also reduced the quality and durability of the new buiildings. The immediate savings led to greatly incresed facility costs in the future.

Other poorer districts were unable to attain voter approval of bond issues to pay for additional schools. The consequence was very large class size and insufficient laboratories and other specialized spaces.

The first of the court cases to address the inadequacy of facilities and their role in providing the "thorough and efficient system" of education required by the New Jersey Constitution was the Robinson v. Cahill case. It was filed in the late 1960s. In 1973, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that the plaintiff (and therefor other students in similar situations) was being denied the required quality of education because of inadequate and overcrowded schools.

Despite the pressure of the Robinson decision, it was another five years before a $100 million bond issue for school facilities was approved by the Legislature and Governor (Byrne), placed on the ballot ahd approved by voters. One hundred million made a dent but was far from adequate to meet the need for more schools. The crisis was mitigated, but not solved, by the drop in births that followed later in the 70s and 80s. School enrollment declined through 1989, reducing immediate demands for new facilities. However, the state's stock of older school buildings aged more and many of the shoddily constructed buildings of the 50s and 60s reached the end of their short lifespan and were no longer usable.

The birth rate during the 80s made it clear that new schools needed to be constructed to house this new wave of school children. But neither the state nor the districts made any attempt to respond with new school construction or expansion of existing facilities. The situation was particularly severe in older cities that had built few, if any, new schools during the"baby boom" period and whose existing infrastructure was far older than in the suburbs and exurbs.

The inadequacy of schools in these older cities, both in education and facilities, was the focus of the Abbott v. Burke decision of the NJ Supreme court in 1990. The Court reaffirmed their 1973 conclusion that the state is responsible for assuring that the facilities needed to provide NJ's constitutionally required "throrugh and efficient system" of education are provided. In response, legislation providing for $600 million to construct schools, and also calling for an additional $600 million four years later, was defeated in the Legislature.

In 1991, the Department of Education (DOE) reevaluated and increased its estimate of the cost to repair and replace school buildings to $6 billion. However, the State Planning Commission projected a far greater amount, $16.4 billion for school facility needs. The response of the Legislature and Governor Florio not only ignored these needs, it actually froze existing annual state debt service aid to school districts at $69 million. It remained at that level for five years.

However, in the face of rapidly increasing enrollment, Florio later proposed and legislation was approved to provide $300 million for school facilities. It included $250 million for low-interest loans and $50 million in grants to the Special Need (Abbott) districts.

In 1994, the Education Funding Review Commission recommended a DOE study to determine the financing mechanism to address unmet physical facilities need, and it called for the Legislature and Governor to implement the recommendations. Nothing happened..

In December 1996, after almost a year of public hearings, Governor Whitman's new school funding law was enacted. Despite testimony by virtually every school official who spoke at numerous public hearings about the overwhelming need for school facilities, the new law, the "Comprehensive Educational Improvement Act of 1996" contained no provisions for funding school construction.